Consequentialism's obvious flaw

Consequentialism tells us it is good to do something if the consequences of doing it are good. But how do we judge if the consequences are good? If we do so by looking to their consequences, obviously we have entered an infinite regress. Therefore, we need non-consequentialist criteria for judging a consequence good or bad.

In that case, consequentialism turns out to be not a complete system of morality, but merely the idea that we ought to pay attention to the consequences of our actions. But what moral theory says we should not pay attention to those consequences?! Every moral thinker of whom I am aware would differentiate between cutting a person with a knife to kill them from cutting them with a knife to save their life in an operation, which is judging the action by its (likely) consequence. (Yes, intentions are involved, but the intentions just are aiming at a certain outcome, right?)

Comments

I don't know much about philosophy, but I think the idea behind consequentialism is separate from the ultimate source of value. Two people can agree on the source of moral beliefs, but one can believe that the application of these beliefs must be done through rules that govern action and another can think that what matters is the end, regardless of the rules that one follows in acting.

Consequentialism is a program for judging policies and actions, not ultimate value as JFC notes.

Imagine Gene and Fetz have different ways of puring beer. I can say I prefer the one that spills less, a consequentialist approach, can't I, without having to debate the value of beer in a glass vs beer on a floor?

"taken that way, who is NOT a consequentialist?"Kant. Rothbardians. Imams. Popes. These folks really do NOT judge a policy by its effects. Consider a Rothbardian like Rod Long and his "don't eat the apples" essay you blogged on, or some imam or pope confronted with evidence that prayer damages health or the effects of legalizing homosexuality. They may make some prudential judgements on the basis of consequences when they judge the moral issue has been dealt with but not most policy decisions.

Wow, Ken, is the goal to make each comment worse than the one before? CONSEQUENCES were (perhaps) ignored in this case. Aristotle (not a "consequentialist") would have called that a lack of prudentia. All mainline Christian thinkers (none of them "consequentialists") would have agreed with him that failing to take into account the consequences of one's actions is a vice.

Popular posts from this blog

"All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimulating' it through artificial means, peoples’ perceptions of economic life have been transformed into that which was intended by the central planners: the economic crush is over, our government cured all the problems, things are great again, go back to your old ways. Rinse and repeat."

Reader rob smeared me as "weird and out of touch" for noting how intolerant progressives and progressive institutions are today. No, he complains, they are only being "fair"! So let me share three items of interest.

At one large organization where a friend works, two black cafeteria cooks were asked to prepare a special meal in honor of African-American history month. No doubt, they thought back to their own childhood and prepared on meal of ribs, collard greens, and cornbread. A much higher status member of the organization came to the cafeteria and was sorely offended by their "stereotyping." She got them fired. So this highly privileged woman got two much less privileged, minority workers, who were probably supporting families on their low wages, thrown out of work because they had offended her progressive ideology by implying that African-American people ever ate African-American cuisine. Hey, fair's fair!